Adaptive Memory: Survival Processing in Ancestral and Fictional Scenarios
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EXAMENSARBETE Våren 2015 Sektionen för lärande och miljö Psykologi Adaptive Memory: Survival Processing in Ancestral and Fictional Scenarios Författare Marcus Asplund Brattberg Handledare Tobias Johansson Examinator Lilly Augustine Abstract The aim of this study was to examine the function behind adaptive memory by comparing groups of participants processing information in ancestral and fictional scenarios related to survival. The thesis was that participants would retain information to a higher extent if processing occurred in a fictional, threatening scenario compared to scenarios based on pleasantness and survival in grasslands. There were four different scenarios, whereas three acted as experimental and one as a control. The comparison was measured by the number of recalled words after a rating process which consisted of rating the relevance of words to survival in respective scenario. Seventy-one participants of differing age were recruited from different parts of the world through social media. They participated by completing a memory experiment on Explorable.com. The results showed that there were no significant differences between groups and the number of rated words recalled. The thesis could therefore not be confirmed. No significant difference could be found in rating of the words in the different scenarios. Much research made on the topic of adaptive memory has suggested that participants remember better when processing information in scenarios described as threatening survival in grasslands and during a zombie outbreak. It seems that simple threat to survival does not increase the retention of information. The increased retention found in scenarios related to zombies may not be due to the popularity this subject has in film and games. Keywords: adaptive memory, fictional scenarios, survival, recall, evolution. Contact info: Marcus Asplund Brattberg, e-mail: [email protected] Adaptive Memory: Survival Processing in Ancestral and Fictional Scenarios It has been argued by several researchers in the natural sciences that: “The theory of evolution (Darwin, 1859) arguably represents the most influential scientific idea to date” (Soderstrom & McCabe, 2011). During the early 21st century, a new branch of memory research was introduced to psychology called adaptive memory. It is defined as the study of memory systems that has evolved to help retain survival- and fitness-related information (Nairne, Thompson & Pandeirada, 2007). To start with, the research was focused around the retention of information in relation to human kind’s early survival and adaptation to early environments (Nairne et al., 2007). The focal idea of the theory is that due to Homo sapiens’ strife for survival on the savannah and grasslands of Africa during the Pleistocene 1.8 million years ago, it was easier for us to remember vital information if our life was at stake (Tooby & Cosmides, 2012; Nairne et al, 2007; Soderstrom & McCabe, 2011). Our potential for survival would supposedly be greater if we had high-functioning memory systems. The focus of the theory has shifted towards other possibilities than survival and fitness; more specifically, the possible proximal mechanisms that lie behind our improved memory function when processing information through the lens of survival (e.g. Nairne & Pandeirada, 2010; Sandry, Marks, Rice & Trafimow, 2013). One of the central researchers in the field is James S. Nairne, who has written several papers on the subject. In one of his books he argues that: Human memory evolved subject to the constraints of nature’s criterion - differential survival and reproduction. Consequently, our capacity to remember and forget is likely tuned to solving fitness-based problems, particularly those prominent in the ancestral environments in which memory evolved (Nairne, 2010, p. 1). The main question of the theory of adaptive memory is connected to how and why the memory of the human species evolved the way it did. Since we cannot investigate how memory functioned in humans that lived in the past, long ago, we cannot be certain if our memory functions in the same way as it did then. Nairne mentions that our memory and its functions “did not emerge from the mind of a memory theorist – it evolved through a tinkering process called natural selection” (Nairne, 2010, p. 2; Darwin, 1859). By stating this, we can conclude that we are dealing with the rogue element of evolution which leaves us with the task of finding out how memory works without a finished blueprint to guide us. The memory function is still a great mystery when it comes to the proximal mechanisms that drives the improved memory functions in relation to survival. It is argued by many evolutionary biologists and psychologists that memory evolved because it enhanced our possibility to procreate and reproduce. In evolutionary theory, it is argued that all possible mutations that aides a species in its reproduction will be retained by the natural selection criterions (Berkeley University). Therefore, memory functions that helps us in reproduction are valuable and thus maintained. This can of course be considered to be an inductive argument due to our limited knowledge of the earlier memory capacity of our brains. A central thesis of evolutionary psychology is the idea that our mind, and how it functions, can be compared to the rest of our body and the organs within it that has a special purpose hammered out by the process of natural selection (Nairne, 2010). With that said, there are several potential candidates for “domain-specific mnemonic processes” proposed by Nairne (2010). These are listed as fitness-relevant selection pressures and are divided into five distinct categories: survival-related events, navigation, reproduction, social exchange and kin (Nairne, 2010). A study made by Öhman and Mineka (2001) have found in a consistent manner that people easily 1 associate stimuli that is fitness-relevant with aversive events. These are often connected with survival and presents themselves in forms of danger or threats. Öhman and Mineka specifically looked at fear and phobias connected to evolution, and how activation in the fear module in humans and non-human primates can assist in remembering locations and situations where fear- inducing or threatening stimuli might occur. Wurm (2007) also found that people are faster at recognizing words that are highly rated on a scale of usefulness to survival relative to matched controls. One important aspect of researching survival-processing is the use of words unrelated to the actual event. A study done by Guillet and Arndt (2009) used taboo-words, which in themselves often have a positive effect on remembering during a free recall-test due to salience. By exposing participants to words or sentences including neutral, negative-valence, or taboo words they found that the memory for taboo words was enhanced in relation to the other two types. In order to see if survival has anything to do with retention of information, one should use unrelated words in order to avoid conflation of two separate domains of memorization. What is important is how the information is being processed prior to a memory test, and what is relevant is how the information is processed in terms of survival or fitness. This demands a kind of “deep” processing for participants which can yield relevant results separated from other kinds of processing when compared to control conditions. The control conditions in these types of studies are more often than not a rating of pleasantness of the words presented which do not require the same kind of deep processing as more elaborate scenarios (Nairne, 2010). In Nairne et al. (2007) three conditions were used with a between-subjects design in order to begin the serious research in this field. The three conditions each contained a separate scenario which was to be used for processing words seemingly unrelated to survival. These scenarios was “Survival” and” Moving” used as the experimental conditions, while a rating of “Pleasantness” was used as the control condition. Words processed in the “Moving”-scenario resulted in the lowest rate of memory retention, while “Survival” yielded the highest recall rate. “Pleasantness” resulted in a ca 1 percent higher retention than “Moving”. Survival processing yielded significantly higher retention compared to the other two which are considered to be meaningful processing (Nairne et al., 2007). In the same paper a second experiment was presented using the same conditions but instead using a within-subjects design. The results still showed that “Survival” yielded greater retention, even though the words in this condition and the “Moving” condition was almost rated as equally important to the scenario. The free-recall test lasted for ten minutes for each condition. Nairne et al. expected that the survival scenario would yield higher retention due to the fact that “our memory systems may be tuned or biased to help us remember information in a survival context” (2007, p. 269). The important aspect of the pleasantness and moving conditions was that these are targeted towards self-reference which has been shown to be an effective method of retaining information (Nairne et al., 2007). The retention of information was measured in correct words recalled during a free-recall test. A second study by Nairne, Pandeirada and Thompson (2008) implemented additional conditions in order to get a broader view of how effective survival processing is. There was six different conditions in this study where Survival and Pleasantness was kept from the study mentioned above, with the addition of “Imagery”, “Self-reference”, “Generation” and “Intentional”. The Imagery-condition asked participants to rate the word according to the ease or difficulty these words arouse mental imagery; the Self-reference condition according to the ease or difficulty these words brought important personal experiences to mind; the Generation condition where pleasantness was rated but the first two letters in every word had switched places; and the Intentional learning condition where the participants were simply asked to 2 memorize the words (Nairne et al., 2008).